About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
ladies? >> i think it's very similar what presidents recently have experienced. george w. bush came hoping to change the environment. bill clinton came thinking he could change it. the last person who began to sense there were greater possibilities was reagan, that was almost a different political age. it was harder to govern then. >> you also think about, had the clintons and how bill clinton -- he seemed to revel in politics, the reaching out to people. in the article, i found it fascinating that the obamas haven't had bill and hillary clinton over for dinner. i -- i mean, she's -- all the things that bill clinton did during the campaign, all the work that hillary clinton's done, they've never had a dinner at the white house with them? >> i think this is something outsiders find difficult and surprising. the obamas can be vivacious, charming they have great public personalities. what people in washington see -- but i think people all over the country don't necessarily see it, there's an intro version there, a self-protectedness. the obamas said both when the president became famou
. >> you took photos of george w6789 bush that you see as book ends, an intense bush family during the disputed election with al gore, and then at the end, president bush leaving the white house? >> yeah, the first one was backstage election night in austin, texas. al gore had already conceded the election, but five minutes after that photo was taken, he called back and took it back which led us to that whole hanging chads scenario. but the final picture. the one that was taken four years ago today is george w. bush, last day as president walking out of the white house to the right is president-elect obama and what struck me about that moment was that bush never looked back, it's like, he threw the keys to the place over to obama and that was it. to me, it's a powerful moment. and also, again, goes to the transition of power of the united states. we have one party going to the next. it's peaceful, you and i have both been in places where the transitions are more difficult. >> that's for sure. thank you for taking the time to talk about these images. thank you so much. in the last f
party over the past four years since george w. bush left town is roger els. he's run the party, he's run the conservative movement. when roger els decides she's not worth the trouble, then that means that conservatism's moving in a new direction. i talked about what happened this weekend at "the national review" institute's talk. i was really surprised. really surprised by what i heard. and heartened, whether it was bill kristol or john hatoritz. also scott walker who is doing really well up in wisconsin. and all the republicans got up there, and they were saying the same thing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. we've been saying here for six months, we have got to -- and john, i thought, had one of the best points, that we have stifled debate. the conservative movement has stifled debate. and if you go out and you dare to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting at
, when president george w. bush was in office. that didn't last long. go back to president ronald reag reagan, republicans talking about the reagan revolution. from eight years of reagan, four years of bush, eight years of clinton, eight years of bush, that reagan's vision, if you will, sort of dominated the conversation. here's what speaker boehner has to understand. look on the state level, republican governors and state legislatures. you have republicans who control more state branches than they actually do democrats, and so this is just typical political whining as will said, both sides want to be in control. it's no doubt because you want to govern a lot easier, if your party controls all levels of political office. >> carol can we talk about what inspired boehner's statement? and that is that president obama's speech was openly progressive, not just on its face on its policy goals like you pointed out in climate change or gun control but in its philosophy as well. >> and? >> the elevation of collectiveism, of collective right, collective action. this is the cycle of american poli
to be asked yesterday. i'm not sure we got really to the core. but i will say, carl, if you think george w. bush didn't have calls for his impeachment, we need to get you on google a little more often. >> not in the congress. a few. >> before we get to women in combat, also, no matter what, rand paul was bringing up a point. you may not have liked the way he brought it up, but if an ambassador in a hot zone cannot communicate with the secretary of state on the issue of security, there's something to be looked at. that's a big problem. >> there's a legitimate congressional investigation here. all i'm saying is that the notion that we have to put everything into a wildly partisan and ideological context instead of real fact finding is a failure of our politics. and this is one more failure of our politics instead of a reasoned investigation. >> i agree with carl. >> it's time to end the political theater and get to some really important fact finding. >> but as congresswoman harman said, it is, in fact, theater. do you remember when the democrats made condoleezza rice read the title on the me
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in casa and bosnia and so forth. -- in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. the don't think concentration -- at of the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because he felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a were prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thought barack obama was really
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)